Meanwhile, on the "CODOH Revisionist Forum" ...

... my old friend Drew J (who obviously knows that my CODOH account has not yet been reactivated, for he refers to the previous blog and thereby signals that he's interested in what we write here) is again mouthing off about me, thereby displaying a miserable personality and (as he claims to have bested me here and there) his delusions of adequacy.

Guest Columnist

Ladies and Gentlemen, Scott Smith of Real Open Debate on the Holocaust.

Read more!

I used to write book reviews for Germar Rudolf's Revisionist before his rendition to the Bundestablishment, and I wrote a couple of movie reviews for Ted O' Keefe before the JHR got closed down.

I started the RODOH message forum back in 2003.
www.rodoh.us

Basicaly I've known Dr. Mathis for a few years now. I used to post on the old CODOH bbs and he was a reliable opponent.

Then the CODOH board was shut down and some of us started our own message boards. I didn't like the censorship policies at Hannover's "Revisionist Forum" so I started my own, called "Real Open-Debate On the Holocaust," since the CODOH bbs was defunct. I didn't invent the title but I find it ironic and even a tribute to Bradley Smith's ideas and what CODOH stands for: Open Debate.

Even though Andrew Mathis is vulgar and no friend of Revisionism or Revisionists, we have an understanding and a mutual respect, and for freedom-of-speech. I let him speak his mind on my forum and he hasn't disappointed me yet. Real debate lets the opposition have its fair say.

This has made me unpopular with some Revisionists. CODOH eventually acquired Hannover's forum as its own, and in addition to banning the opposition I am now banned from using Hannover's, now CODOH's, message board because I allow Mathis to post on mine. The two have a mutual vendetta going on.

Other than refusing to try to conceal Hannover's real name, it is not true that I collect personal information about Revisionists to make it public, which is what is said about me. Some of the anti-Revisionists that do post on my forum regularly might do so in their own personal blogs, however, which I have nothing to do with, and no control over.

Long story short--I think Dr. Mathis is quite serious in debating Hannover. Back in 2003-04 he and Paul Grubach were going to debate, but they couldn't agree on a format. Mathis did not want it published in the Revisionist and Grubach didn't want to publish it online at RODOH. So it fell though.

However, Dr. Robert Countess stepped up to the plate and agreed to debate Mathis. Eventually Mathis declined but he did arrange to have another anti-Revisionist take his place, Steve Mock, who did a fine job indeed. This was called the "Scholars' Debate" at RODOH and everybody said that it couldn't be done. Only a couple of Revisionists agreed to help me.

It turns out that Dr. Countess didn't contribute a lot and in November of 2004 told me that he was terminally ill and dropped out. That was devastating news but I was planning on continuting myself to wrap it up but then I was hit by a car while riding my bicycle home from work. Anyway, the effort was a good learning experience for me but I'm not 100 percent satisfied with our performance. One flaw in my plan was that our moderation panel couldn't get along in setting the rules (especially as to length) and I had to abandon that hat and join the Revisionist team myself or nothing would have happened.

You can read the Scholars' Debate here if you are interested:

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm23.showMessage?topicID=2.topic

I'm also not pleased that so many Revisionists refused to help debate when they have been making such noises about precisely this for so long.

The best way to prove Mathis wrong is for Hannover (and any Revisionists that want to help him) to engage Dr. Mathis in the challenge. Mathis is bending over backwards to make it fair. Yes, there is a personal element at work here, but Dr. Countess wasn't afraid to help the Revisionist cause.

I really think that Revisionists ought to consider this one. I don't want to get involved myself this time but I would be willing to host the matter--although Hannover may not agree to that aspect since there is some bad blood between us on account of my being banned at his forum. Dr. Mathis is flexible on the terms and it need not involve RODOH at all.

Feel free to forward this as you wish.

Best,
Scott Smith

A Real Political Prisoner

Since their indictments/incarcerations, Holocaust deniers Ernst Zündel, David Irving, Germar Rudolf, Siegfried Verbeke, and others have been labeled "political prisoners." In particular, because of their supposedly "illegal" treatment by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services, Zündel and Rudolf have gotten significant traction outside of denier circles among pundits who believe the rights of these two men had been violated in the course of their deportations to Germany to stand trial for denying the Holocaust.

(There was, by the way, nothing abnormal or illegal about the manner in which Zündel and Rudolf were deported from the U.S. Both men violated U.S. immigration law, and particularly in the case of Zündel, a strong case was made that he was a serious security threat against any nation in which he resided.)

Meanwhile, Nobel Peace prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who will turn 61 next month and who should have been freed from house arrest yesterday, had her sentence extended by the military junta that governs her native Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. Her crime? Advocating for democracy in her native country.

Make no mistakes: Aung San Suu Kyi is a real political prisoner, her rights severely violated because of her conviction to equality. Compare her with Zündel, an avowed National Socialist, or Rudolf, who "made his bones" helping to defend Otto Ernst Remer, the neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier who helped save Hitler's life from the July 20, 1944, plot against the Nazi leader by members of the military high command.

It sickens me to no end that "revisionists" claim the likes of Zündel (the "warrior for peace" who employed skinhead bodyguards) as a political prisoner while genuinely non-violent political dissidents languish in jails across the world. Aung San Suu Kyi is merely the most famous of these dissidents; they number far greater in the prisions of every continent.

So the next time some Holocaust denier tries to tell you that you must act to help Ernst Zündel because he's a political prisoner, ask them what they've done to ameliorate the situation of Aung San Suu Kyi.

And then marvel as they ask, "Aung San Suu Who?"

"CODOH" my ass - Bradley Smith's hypocrisy

"CODOH" stands for "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust", the Holocaust denial organization founded by Bradley Smith.

Recently the so-called "Revisionist Forum" has become the official forum of CODOH's website. For several years the forum has been run by UCLA library assistant Jonnie Hargis ("Hannover"), though now several other persons may help to moderate it. The forum is known for its severe censorship of opposing viewpoints - many prominent online anti-deniers have been banned from it basically for effectively debunking deniers' arguments (though false excuses have been given for their banning). But not only anti-deniers are banned. For example "revisionist" Scott Smith, head of alternative forum "RODOH" ("Real Open Debate on the Holocaust") has also been banned.

Bans are not the only tools of censorship at CODOH forum. Many posts just do not make it there (if the poster is in pre-moderation mode), many are deleted, some are edited before appearing. I have experienced this myself, as did many other participants, whether "revisionists" or anti-"revisionists". Not a perfect "1984" emulation, but pretty close.

Recently a Portuguese denier AS Marques, who for some time has been participating in discussions at CODOH forum (and was initially welcome there) complained about Hargis' practices at Bradley Smith's blog. After several replies Smith has simply deleted the whole thread, but you can read most of it here.

So, what do we have here? A "revisionist" complains about Orwellian practices at a "revisionist" forum. Bradley Smith, this self-described libertarian, striving for the "Open Debate on the Holocaust", turns the blind eye on the complaint, dreams up excuses for Hargis' behavior, and then sends the complaint and the ensuing discussion to the Memory Hole.

That's Open Debate for you, folks.

Update: AS Marques says in the comments that his comments were deleted by his request.

No comments necessary

Here are responses of "revisionists" to the arson attack on the Holocaust History Project office:
Official CODOH forum

Why would Revisionists want them silenced? Are they kidding? Their material is a blessing to Revisionists efforts. Their laughable 'documents' and the irrational material on their website have been utterly demolished by Revisionists, each and every one.
"a pair of military uniforms worn by a judge at the Dachau trials". What's up with that? Do these clowns run around in WWII uniforms?

There has been quite a lot of cases during the last years of "hate crimes" being perpetrated by the "victims", and I wouldn't put it past Mazal et.al in this case. I mean, their "evidence" and "refutations" are mainly made out of thin air, so they could easily replace the old ones.

Two thousand (2,000) books? I would imagine many of them would be Holocaust books. Holocaust books in the future will be the testament to the scope of the fraud. As things start to spiral downwards for the Holocaust community they will be making a effort to burn their own books. You know, attempts at erasing the record. Who knows, maybe the process is already in motion. They could even have mass burnings and then try to capitalize on it.

What if it was a group of Jewish lesbians imitating the hate crime at Claremont college in California.

Denier at RODOH

The truth is that the arsonists are Mazal, Keren et al.
This is their surrender. They found out that there is no prove for the h-cheese.

Another denier at RODOH

Jews' are famous for arson.
:)